gender equality in sport leadership: from the … · 2020-05-25 · the focus was specifically on...

1

GENDER EQUALITY IN SPORT LEADERSHIP: FROM THE BRIGHTON DECLARATION TO THE SYDNEY SCOREBOARD

Johanna A. Adriaanse, University of Technology Sydney and

Inge Claringbould, University of Utrecht

International Review for the Sociology of Sport, accepted 1 September 2014

Abstract

This study investigated the development of the legacies of the five World Conferences on

Women and Sport that have been auspiced by the International Working Group on Women

and Sport from 1994 to 2010. In particular, it examined the ways in which gender is

constructed in these legacies in relation to gender equality in sport leadership. The

theoretical framework was drawn from Connell’s four-dimensional gender model, which

suggests that gender relations can be characterized in terms of four interwoven dimensions of

social life: production, power, emotion and symbolism. The method used was a comparative

case study of five legacies. We conducted a content analysis of documents relevant to the

five legacies. Findings show that, in all five legacies, gender in relation to sport leadership

was mainly constructed on the dimension of production and power relations (more women in

leadership positions) and symbolic relations (creating a sporting culture that values women’s

participation at all levels). By contrast, the gendered dimension of emotional

relations―collaboration between men and women―received limited attention. The

implications of these findings for the acceleration of gender equality in sport leadership are

discussed.

Keywords: sport leadership, gender, Connell’s gender model, conference legacies,

international women’s sport movement

GENDER EQUALITY IN SPORT LEADERSHIP 2

The International Working Group on Women and Sport (IWG) was established in

1994 to increase the involvement of women in sport at all levels, including in decision-

making and leadership roles. It noted that, although women’s participation in sport had

increased both at grassroots level and in relation to opportunities to compete at an elite level,

women’s representation in sport leadership remained a serious challenge (International

Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994). The focus was specifically on high (national

and international) level sport leadership positions in management, coaching and officiating.

The IWG has auspiced five World Conferences on Women and Sport over the past two

decades. Each conference has left a legacy, in the form of declarations, calls for action and

other initiatives designed to achieve gender equality in sport including in sport leadership.

The legacies aim to contribute to gender equality in sport through influencing sport

organizations by providing guidance for policy and practice. This paper examines the

development of these legacies with reference to sport leadership. In particular, it explores the

way in which they conceptualize gender and to what extent the concept or construction of

gender has changed in the legacies over time.

The first legacy was the Brighton Declaration, an outcome of the first World

Conference on Women and Sport held in Brighton, UK, in 1994. The aim of this and

subsequent conference legacies was to accelerate change in sporting culture, including gender

equality in sport leadership. In 2014, participants will gather in Helsinki to celebrate its 20th

anniversary at the sixth World Conference on Women and Sport. Other initiatives developed

as legacies of the quadrennial World Conferences are the Windhoek Call for Action (1998),

the Montreal Toolkit (2002), the Kumamoto Commitment to Collaboration (2006), and the

Sydney Scoreboard (2010).

Central to the argument for increasing women’s representation in decision-making

positions in sport is the assumption that women represent stakeholders who should be


included (democratic principle) and that their inclusion increases the pool of talent available

for selection into leadership positions (business principle) (Branson, 2007; Erhardt et al.,

2003; Huse and Solberg, 2006; Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Singh and Vinnicombe, 2004; van

der Walt and Ingley, 2003). A comprehensive review of research on women directors on

corporate boards, based on more than 400 publications over the past 30 years (Terjesen et al.,

2009), found that corporate governance was improved when women were appointed to

boards because they brought “value-adding” talents and represented stakeholders who had

previously been excluded. Terjesen and her colleagues (2009) explain that gender diversity

on boards contribute to more effective corporate governance in two ways: through individual

interactions and through a variety of board processes. They provide evidence that women’s

presence in the boardroom lead to more sensitivity to other perspectives. Women brought

unique skills, knowledge and experience to the board, adding a different voice to debates and

decision making. They also frequently asked questions which enhanced the board’s

independence. Further, they found that boards with three or more women were “significantly

more active in promoting non-financial performance measures such as customer and

employee satisfaction…as well as considering measures of innovation and corporate social

responsibility” (Terjesen et al., 2009: 329).

A growing number of studies seeks to understand the relationship between gender and

sport leadership, in particular the issue of women’s under-representation in sport

management. Researchers have examined this issue in a range of countries, including

Australia (McKay, 1992; McKay, 1997; Sibson, 2010; Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013),

Canada (Shaw and Slack, 2002; Hall et al., 1989; Inglis, 1997), Germany (Pfister and Radtke,

2009; Doll-Tepper et al., 2006), the Netherlands (Claringbould and Knoppers, 2007;

Claringbould and Knoppers, 2008; Claringbould and Knoppers, 2012), New Zealand (Shaw,

2006; Cameron, 1996), Norway (Fasting, 2000; Hovden, 2000; Skirstad, 2002; Hovden,


2006; Skirstad, 2009; Hovden, 2010), the UK (White and Brackenridge, 1985; Shaw and

Penney, 2003; Shaw and Hoeber, 2003) and the USA (Burton et al., 2011; Schull et al.,

2013). At an international level, Henry and his colleagues (Henry et al., 2004; Henry and

Robinson, 2010) have investigated women’s leadership in the Olympic Movement. Most of

the early studies explored questions of exclusion, such as the ratio of women directors and

barriers to women obtaining leadership positions, and suggested ameliorative strategies.

More recently, researchers have shifted focus by applying a relational gender perspective to

investigations of how gender works in sport leadership. In a comprehensive review of

research, Burton (2014) has provided a multilevel examination of available scholarship into

the area of women’s under-representation in sport leadership. It is evident that to date, no

study has analysed the development of international initiatives on gender equality and sport

leadership as a legacy of the World Conferences on Women and Sport. These legacies aim to

contribute to bringing about positive change for gender equality through policy and practice

advice.

In this paper, we investigate the context of each World Conference and its legacy in

relation to gender equality and sport leadership from 1994 to 2010. Specifically, we examine

the construction of gender in the legacies and the way in which this has changed over time.

The research questions that informed the study were: 1) How are gender and gender equality

constructed in each of the five World Conferences legacies? 2) To what extent has the

construction of gender and gender equality changed in these legacies? 3) In light of the

study’s results, what are the implications for accelerating gender equality in sport leadership?

The theoretical framework for the study is Connell’s (2009) four-dimensional gender

model. Connell contends that the key to understanding gender is to move away from a focus

on gender differences to one on relationships between and among men and women at a

number of levels, including the personal and institutional. Gender relations are characterized


by four interwoven dimensions of social life: production, power, emotion and symbolism.

Using this model, we provide a deeper and more systematic analysis of how gender and

gender equality are constructed in the World Conference legacies in relation to leadership.

This approach is a marked departure from previous studies on women’s under-representation

in sport management and contributes to the field by providing a better understanding of the

relationship between gender equality and sport leadership.

This paper is structured in the following way. We first clarify the concepts of sport

leadership, gender equality and gendered power. We then present the theoretical framework,

Connell’s (2009) four-dimensional gender model, and describe the study’s methodology.

The context and legacies of the five World Conferences on Women and Sport, including an

overview of relevant international human rights and gender equality instruments, are

described and analysed. We draw conclusions about the construction of gender and gender

equality in the legacies with reference to sport leadership and discuss implications for

practice.

Conceptual Framework: Connell’s Four-Dimensional Gender Model

Sport leadership refers to people in decision-making positions in the realm of sport.

They include executives in sport administration, management and governance as well as

coaches and officials. This definition of sport leadership corresponds with the way the term

is understood in the Brighton Declaration, one of the objects of this study (International

Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994).

Gender equality is the term used in international public policy to refer to equal rights,

responsibilities and opportunities of women and men at all levels across a wide range of

arenas (United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, 2007). In this study, we

use the term “gender equality” rather than “gender equity”. This is consistent with UN

convention and with the theoretical framework on which the study is based. Although the


two terms originally differed―gender equality typically referred to men and women having

equal opportunity with the same rights and resources, while gender equity emphasised

fairness and justice for men and women―in current usage, the terms are interchangeable.

The notion of power is central to the topic of gender equality. This core concept has

been widely discussed in the social sciences by acclaimed international scholars, such as the

French philosopher Michel Foucault (1982) and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1977), German

sociologist Jurgen Habermas (1976) and the British political theorist Stephen Lukes (1974),

among others. The most common interpretation of power is that it is the exercise by an actor

or actors of their own will in social practice, even against the resistance of others (Clegg et

al., 2011). The actor can be an individual or collective entity such as a group or organization.

Regarding the relationship between power, organizations and gender, internationally

acclaimed scholar Kanter (1977) argued that the role of managers is profoundly masculinised

since rationality and efficiency are the raison d’être for their position. She concluded that it

was the structure of the corporation rather than individual characteristics that caused gender

inequalities. Problems for women arose because they were located in dead-end jobs at the

bottom of the organization or appeared as tokens at the top.

Building on this perspective, Acker (1990) introduced the concept of the ‘gendered

organization’. She argued that organizations are not gender-neutral and should be viewed as

sites that are gender-patterned in their very constitution. That is, their basic

components―structure, ideology, policy and practice, interaction and identity―are

characterized by a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine. This

constitutive patterning, according to Acker, simultaneously reproduces gender inequalities,

since the distinction that characterizes it necessarily involves hierarchical differentiation of

values along gendered lines.


Much of the recent theoretical work on gender builds on the concept of gender as a

verb―we ‘do gender’ on a routine, daily basis (West and Zimmerman, 1987; Connell, 1987).

This approach has also been explored by European scholars, most notably in Kvande’s (2007)

work on gender and organizations. Integrating the approaches of Connell (1987), West and

Zimmerman (1987), West and Fenstermaker (1995), and Acker (1990), she proposed that

gender is dynamic and flexible since it is constantly created and accomplished in response to

the social environment. In contrast to the view of gender as something that is inherited

and/or comprised of learned individual qualities, Kvande emphasized its dynamic interactive

nature. She suggested that the ‘doing gender’ perspective allows us to identify patterns of

gendered practices that are created not only by individuals but also, importantly, by

corporations and organizations.

Connell (2009) has provided a contemporary framework for identifying a pattern of

gendered practices, based on four main areas of social life. The combination of these four

dimensions, and the pattern of gender relations produced by it, is what Connell (2009) calls a

“gender regime” (Connell, 2009: 72).

The first dimension of the gender model is production relations or the gendered

division of labor, which refers to the way in which production or work is arranged along

gender lines. In the context of sport organizations, this gender division relates to the roles

and tasks allocated to men and women in the organization, including at the executive level.

The second dimension of the gender model is gender relations of power, that is, the

way in which control, authority, and force are exercised, individually and collectively, along

gender lines, including organizational hierarchy, legal power and violence. When applied to

sport organizations, this dimension usually refers to men’s dominance and influence in

decision-making and how they advance their interests in the process.


The third dimension is emotion and human relations, that is, the way attachment and

antagonism among people and groups are organized along gender lines, including feelings of

solidarity, prejudice, sexual attraction and repulsion. Emotional relations in sport

organizations relate to the patterns of attachment and hostility that exist within and between

men and women and include, for example, the ways they support and collaborate or oppose

and undermine each other in their work.

The fourth dimension is gender culture and symbolism, that is, the way in which

gender identities are defined and gender is represented and understood, including prevailing

beliefs and attitudes about gender. In reference to sport organizations, symbolic relations are

operationalized in their understanding of gender and gender equality, including beliefs about

gender parity in leadership positions and gender equality in governance. Although these four

structures of gender relations can be distinguished, they do not operate independently but are

interwoven and constantly interact with each other.

Connell (2005) and Schofield and Goodwin (2005) have effectively applied the four-

dimensional gender model to the analyses of gender dynamics in several public sector

institutions in Australia. In the realm of sport, their approach has been adopted in an

investigation of the gender relations that characterize the composition and operation of boards

of Australian National Sport Organisations (NSOs) and the extent to which they offer

opportunities for, or pose barriers to, gender equal governance (Adriaanse and Schofield,

2013; Adriaanse, 2013). The present study builds on these studies by using the model to

analyse the construction of gender in the World Conference legacies from 1994 to 2010.

Method

The research design comprised a comparative case study of the five legacies from the

World Conferences on Women and Sport (1994-2010). We collected a range of documents,

starting with those that outlined each legacy of the five World Conferences, namely, the


Brighton Declaration, the Windhoek Call for Action, the Montreal Toolkit, the Kumamoto

Commitment to Collaboration and the Sydney Scoreboard. For each legacy, we identified the

sections that referred to gender equality in sport leadership.

We also collected documentation of relevant instruments developed by the UN which

had informed the conference legacies. These included the Millennium Development Goals,

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In order to gain a better understanding

of the wider context of the conference legacies, we identified those sections of the UN

instruments that focused on gender equality, sport and/or leadership.

In addition, we collected data from documents relating to IWG Annual Meetings,

Conference Programs, IWG Workshops and other papers and notes from the IWG Secretariat.

These documents are publicly available at the University of Chichester, which holds the

archives of the international women and sport movement.

Our main analytical strategy was informed by the conceptual framework, as

recommended for case study research (Yin, 2009). The four dimensions of Connell’s (2009)

gender model provided the a priori concepts for data analysis. Each legacy was read to

identify and code any sections that were relevant to a particular category of Connell’s

framework of gender relations. Similar to Adriaanse and Schofield’s study (2013), Connell’s

model was adapted to work as a data analysis tool by formulating the four dimensions as

questions to be applied to the data. The first category, production relations, was

operationalized by becoming the question, how does the legacy address the roles and tasks on

the board of sport organizations in terms of men and women? The second category, power

relations, became the question, how does the legacy address issues of influence, authority and

control in terms of men and women directors? The third category, emotional relations, was

applied to the data analysis as, how does the legacy address human relationships between and


among men and women directors? The final category, symbolic relations, was addressed

through the question, how does the legacy address cultural and symbolic understandings of

gender and gender equality?

Thus, the procedure involved identifying which dimensions were addressed in each

conference legacy. A separate file was compiled for each legacy containing a separate

section for each category or code. After identifying the gender dimensions for each legacy,

we conducted a cross case synthesis (Yin, 2009).

Results

This section begins with an overview of those UN instruments that informed the

conference legacies. Subsequently, we describe the context in which each legacy was

conceptualized and explain the actual legacy, with particular focus on the section that relates

to sport leadership. Applying the four-dimensional gender model, we then systematically

analyze which dimensions are addressed in each legacy.

International human rights, gender equality and sport

In 2000, international leaders gathered to develop a vision for a better world that

would be characterized by less poverty, better-educated children and a sustainable

environment. Their vision was captured in the United Nations’ eight Millennium

Development Goals, a framework for development with a target date of 2015 (United

Nations, 2011). One of these goals, the third Millennium Development Goal, is “to promote

gender equality and empower women” (United Nations, 2011: 1). It is noteworthy that this

goal mentions gender equality in combination with the empowerment of women, which is

consistent with the notion that gender equality involves women as active agents in

empowering their own experiences.

The concept of gender equality has been on the global development agenda since the

inception of the United Nations in 1945. Calls for gender equality were already documented


in the Charter of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945) and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). The following articles in the Universal Declaration

are relevant to the realm of sport and physical education: “Everyone has the right to rest and

leisure…” (article 24) (United Nations, 1948: 1); “Education shall be directed to the full

development of the human personality…” (article 26) (United Nations, 1948: 1); and, on the

assumption that sport is an integral part of cultural life, “Everyone has the right to freely

participate in the cultural life of the community…” (article 27) (United Nations, 1948: 1).

When the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW) was adopted more than 30 years later, further calls were made to promote

women’s and girls’ involvement in sport (United Nations, 1979). Article 10 asks

participating nations to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women and girls in

the field of education in order to ensure that they have the same opportunities as men and

boys, including active participation in sport and physical education. In addition, article 13

calls on participating nations to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women in

other areas of economic and social life in order to ensure that women have the same rights as

men to participate in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life (United

Nations, 1979).

Other international instruments related to improving the lives of women and girls

include the Ottawa Charter (World Health Organisation, 1986) and the Beijing Declaration

and the Platform for Action Fourth World Conference on Women (United Nations, 1995).

The latter, adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, provides

several policy recommendations on women, gender equality and sport, including calls for

women to fill sport leadership positions. In the critical area of education, The Beijing

Platform for Action calls for governments and educational institutions to establish gender-

sensitive programs to support the advancement of women of all ages in sport and physical


activity, including administration and coaching at national, regional and international levels.

Further, in the critical area of power and decision-making, it notes that the under-

representation of women in leadership positions in culture, sport, education and law has

prevented women from having a significant impact on many key institutions (United Nations,

1995).

The Brighton Declaration

In response to the UN instruments, the first international sport-related declaration in

relation to gender equality was developed in 1994. Known as the Brighton Declaration

(International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994), it was the legacy of the First

World Conference on Women and Sport held in Brighton, United Kingdom. This

conference, entitled “Challenge of Change”, reflected a shift in the women’s sport movement

towards its inclusion in a wider feminist and political agenda. The conference, targeted at

sport policy and decision-makers at national and international levels, aimed to accelerate the

process of change towards a more equitable global sporting culture. A conscious effort was

made to include women from developing countries and all regions of the world. Substantial

support and funding were secured from the (then) UK Sports Council, British Council and the

International Olympic Committee (IOC). Representing a global voice, 280 delegates from 82

countries attended the conference and endorsed the Brighton Declaration. Informed by the

Charter of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945), the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (United Nations, 1948) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (United Nations, 1979), the Brighton

Declaration’s main aim was “to develop a sporting culture that enables and values the full

involvement of women in every aspect of sport” (International Working Group on Women

and Sport, 1994: 1).


The Brighton Declaration is a four-page document which starts with a brief overview

of the First World Conference on Women and Sport and background to the Declaration. It

then presents the actual Declaration which contains ten guiding principles relating to equality

in society and sport: facilities, school and junior sport, developing participation, high

performance sport, leadership in sport, education, training and development, sports

information and research, resources, and domestic and international cooperation. Two

sections specifically refer to sport leadership. The first section is found in the background to

the Brighton Declaration and states:

Despite growing participation of women in sport in recent years and increased

opportunities for women to participate in domestic and international arenas, increased

representation of women in decision making and leadership roles within sport has not

followed. Women are significantly under-represented in management, coaching and

officiating, particularly at the higher levels. Without women leaders, decision makers

and role models within sport, equal opportunities for women and girls will not be

achieved (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994: 1).

The second section comprises the principle in regard to leadership in sport which says:

Women are under-represented in the leadership and decision making of all sport and

sport-related organisations. Those responsible for these areas should develop policies

and programs and design structures which increase the number of women coaches,

advisers, decision makers, officials, administrators and sports personnel at all levels

with special attention given to recruitment, development and retention (International

Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994: 2).

Thus, it recommended that people in powerful positions create opportunities for women to

obtain leadership positions in sport organizations.


Applying Connell’s four-dimensional gender model, the Brighton Declaration clearly

addresses the symbolic dimension of gender because it emphasizes beliefs, values, culture

and principles. It puts gender equality on the political agenda and seeks to change the

sporting culture. The strong connection to UN instruments and human rights is evident in the

first principle of the Declaration which states:

Every effort should be made by state and government machineries to ensure that

institutions and organizations responsible for sport comply with the equality

provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1994: 2).

This citation demonstrates the Brighton Declaration’s relevance to the symbolic

dimension of gender relations. For example, article 27 in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights states that everyone (i.e. including women) has the right to freely participate in

the cultural life of the community, including sport. This is a clear statement of values around

gender relations and gender equality.

Further, the Brighton Declaration addresses the production and power dimensions of

Connell’s gender model which as previously outlined, relate to the number, roles and tasks of

men and women. The leadership principle emphasizes “increase(ing) the number of women

coaches, advisers, decision makers, officials, administrators” (International Working Group

on Women and Sport, 1994: 2). This is a call for a shift in sport leadership positions, with

more roles and tasks allocated to women who, through their increased presence, will have

more power, authority and influence in decision-making.

There is, however, no explicit statement in the Brighton Declaration that refers to the

emotional dimension of gender relations. Although it urges those responsible in sport


organizations to create opportunities for women to obtain leadership positions, it does not

explicitly identify men, who hold most of the influential positions, as those who must assume

responsibility for taking such supportive action. It does not refer to men’s and women’s

collaboration and solidarity.

The Windhoek Call for Action

The International Working Group on Women and Sport (IWG) was established at the

conclusion of the First World Conference on Women and Sport. This was a global

coordination network with close links to national governments and key non-government

organizations (Hargreaves, 2000). The main purpose of the IWG was to monitor the

implementation of the Brighton Declaration and to plan future World Conferences on

Women and Sport. Four years later, in 1998, the Second World Conference on Women and

Sport was held in Windhoek, Namibia, with the theme “Reaching out for Change”. A total of

400 delegates from 74 countries adopted the Windhoek Call for Action (International

Working Group on Women and Sport, 1998), the legacy of the conference. This two-page

document starts, similar to the Brighton Declaration, with a brief overview of the most recent

World Conference on Women and Sport and background. Subsequently it calls for action in

several areas.

In the background section it notes the need to establish connections with existing UN

international instruments, including those which resulted from the Fourth World Conference

on Women in Beijing in 1995. This again reflects a conscious effort by the IWG to locate the

advancement of women and sport within the broader global women’s movement and to

emphasize the positive contribution of girls’ and women’s involvement in sport to social,

health and economic aspects of life. The Windhoek Call for Action reaffirmed the principles

of the Brighton Declaration. In addition, it called for action in eleven areas, including the

area of leadership:


Build the capacity of women as leaders and decision makers and ensure that women

play meaningful and visible roles in sport at all levels. Create mechanisms that ensure

that young women have a voice in the development of policies and programmes that

affect them (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1998: 1).

The emphasis on building women’s capacity as leaders and including the voices of young

women in policy making and programming are noteworthy.

In terms of the four-dimensional gender model, the Windhoek Call for Action

addresses the symbolic dimension since it is informed by (then) recently developed UN

instruments. It states: “…the need for linkages into existing international instruments, in

particular the Beijing Platform for Action and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination against Women (International Working Group on Women and

Sport, 1998: 1). Considering that these instruments focus on beliefs, values and principles

regarding gender and gender equality it is evident that this legacy refers to the symbolic

dimension of gender.

Further, the emphasis on capacity-building and on ensuring that women “play

meaningful and visible roles in sport at all levels” (International Working Group on Women

and Sport, 1998: 1) show that this legacy involves production relations, the division of labour

along gender lines. The statement about women “hav(ing) a voice in the development of

policies and programmes” (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1998: 1),

thereby exerting influence and control, relates to the power dimension of gender relations.

Emotional relations are referenced in several ways. The conference theme of

“Reaching Out” and the choice of conference location (Africa) reflect an emphasis on

engaging more women internationally. The focus on diversity, which was not confined to

geographical location, was further evidenced in another statement in the Windhoek Call for

Action that highlighted the need for sport policies and programs to provide opportunities for


all women regardless of race, ethnicity, ability, religion, culture, sexual orientation and status

as an indigenous person (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 1998). These

aspects of women’s diversity and inclusiveness suggest support, solidarity and collaboration

among women. On the other hand, as with the previous legacy, it does not explicitly propose

support and collaboration between women and men. Therefore, this legacy explicitly

addresses the emotional dimension of gender between women only.

The Montreal Toolkit

The issue of women in leadership positions remained at the forefront during the Third

World Conference on Women and Sport held in Montreal, Canada, in 2002. The conference

theme was “Investing in Change” and 550 participants from 97 countries endorsed its legacy,

the Montreal Tool Kit (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2002). This

initiative contained 20 tools - 70 pages of materials and ideas - for conference participants to

implement in their own country and situation to increase women’s and girls’ opportunities in

sport. It was based on successful strategies generated by women and men around the world to

advance women’s participation and leadership in sport. Amongst other materials, it provided

several strategies and practical ideas to increase the number of women in decision-making

positions across four sections, namely, tools for advocating change, for changing

organizations, for individual development and for preparing an action plan (International


In relation to the four-dimensional gender model, this legacy, which is mainly a

practical resource, involves both production and power relations because of its focus on

increasing the number of women in decision-making positions (i.e. sport leadership). For

example, the first tool in the section on advocating change suggests using facts and stats to

highlight “why girls and women should have more opportunities to participate and lead (our

emphasis) in sport and physical activity” (International Working Group on Women and


Sport, 2002: 1). In addition, one of the tools in the section on changing organizations,

systems and structures outlines steps for the development of a national policy that includes

“increasing the number of women and girls in key-decision making and leadership positions

in sport, recreation and physical activity” (International Working Group on Women and

Sport, 2002: 29). Further, in the section on tools for individual development, the focus of tool

18 is on recruiting and retaining women in leadership roles of coaching and officiating. This

tool outlines objectives and strategies “as a guide to involving more women in coaching and

officiating roles” (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2002: 52).

The symbolic dimension of the gender model is also addressed: as the preface of the

Montreal Toolkit explains, the strategies and tools are designed to bring about “exciting

changes resulting in fairer opportunities for girls and women in sport and physical activity”

(International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2002: iv). It is about changing the

culture of sport towards gender equality which involves beliefs, values and principles and

therefore relates to the symbolic dimension.

None of the 20 tools described in the toolkit, however, specifically aims to enhance

collaboration between men and women or gain support from men to effect change. Tool four

entitled Building coalitions and partnerships in which one could expect a suggestion of

partnership between men and women fails to mention it. For example, this tool states

“involve more people…in accomplishing common goals” and promote “ shared leadership”

(International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2002: 12) which may imply but does not

explicitly express collaboration with men. Therefore, the emotional dimension of gender

relations with reference to collaboration between men and women has not explicitly been

addressed in this legacy.


The Kumamoto Commitment to Collaboration

In 2006, 700 participants from 74 countries gathered for the Fourth World Conference

on Women and Sport in Kumamoto, Japan, under the theme “Participating in Change”. It

was the first time the World Conference had been held in Asia. The program comprised, in

addition to plenary sessions, twelve workshops designed to be interactive leading to

recommendations supported by the participants. As documented in the conference program,

Dr. Anita White, Conference Program Coordinator, outlined that “The outcomes of the

workshops, together with recommendations made by speakers, will all contribute to a future

vision for women and sport to be articulated in the plenary session on the last day of the

conference” (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2006b). An important part

of the future vision was the legacy of this conference: The Kumamoto Commitment to

Collaboration, a graphic display unveiled on the final conference day. According to one

description that attempts to capture its meaning:

In order to realize gender equality in and through sport, we commit to building a

network for close collaboration with relevant agencies and individuals. Over the next

four years (2006-2010), we will further develop the vision of active participation in

change born at the Kumamoto Conference (International Working Group on Women

and Sport, 2006a: 1).

The notion of collaboration evolved from the fact that, since the Brighton Declaration, a

plethora of women’s sport organizations had emerged at local, national and regional level. In

order to effectively progress the women’s sport movement, there was a need to collaborate,

share and learn from each other and build on each other’s efforts.

Participants at this World Conference engaged in a series of workshops, one of which

was called “Changing the Culture of Leadership in Sport”. This workshop resulted in several

recommendations for action, including:


• Conduct more research and case studies reflecting women’s positions and

leadership;

• Replicate research in each country about women’s leadership and position on

National Sport Organizations; and

• Work within UN structures to promote access to women’s sport leadership

opportunities

(International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2006c).

Minutes of the IWG Annual General Meeting in May 2006 reiterate the final

recommendation by stating that a decision was made to strengthen the relationship with UN

agencies in future years, including through IWG’s representation at annual meetings

(Commission on the Status of Women) organized by the UN Division for the Advancement

for Women in New York.

In relation to the four-dimensional gender model, this legacy appears at first sight to

represent a unique approach. It seems markedly different from the previous legacies insofar

as it places emphasis on the role of emotional and human relations in achieving gender

equality which is evident in its call for “building a network for close collaboration with

relevant organizations and individuals” (International Working Group on Women and Sport,

2006a: 1). Closer analysis, however, shows that the Kumamoto Commitment to Collaboration

does not specify collaboration or support along gender lines, that is, between men and

women.

As in the earlier legacies, production, power and symbolic gender relations were all

addressed in the broader context of the Kumamoto Conference, as evidenced by the

recommendations of the workshop on leadership in sport. The recommendations for

conducting and replicating research on women’s representation in leadership positions refer


to both production and power relations. The recommendation on liaison with UN structures

refers to the UN declarations and conventions, which include principles, rights and values,

and therefore involves the symbolic dimension of gender relations.

The Sydney Scoreboard

Following the recommendation of the Kumamoto Conference, researchers from the

IWG and WomenSport International collaborated with the United Nations Division for the

Advancement of Women (UNDAW) on a major publication on women and sport and the

effectiveness of sport in promoting equality and social development. The Director of

UNDAW, Carolyn Hannan (2006), argued that sport and physical activity are powerful tools

for women’s and girls’ development. The resulting publication, Women 2000 and Beyond:

Women, Gender Equality and Sport, was launched during the 52nd Session of the Commission

on the Status of Women at the UN Headquarters in New York in 2008. This monograph was

part of the Women 2000 and Beyond series which promotes the goals of the Beijing

Declaration and the Platform for Action. It was the first time in the history of the United

Nations that a full publication was dedicated to women and sport. Amongst other issues, it

identified the under-representation of women in decision-making bodies of sport

organizations at local, national, regional and international levels as a major area of concern

(United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, 2007). In order to accelerate the

process of change in sport governance it recommended:

[going] beyond increasing numbers to enhancing the effectiveness and impact of

women’s participation, through increasing women’s voice in shaping policies,

resource allocations, and program development and management…Monitoring and

evaluation of the impact of initiatives, such as the use of targets and quotas, need to be

significantly strengthened. Reliable and comparable data are required, both as an


advocacy and awareness tool (United Nations Division for the Advancement of

Women, 2007: 29-30).

The issue of women in sport governance was revisited at the Fifth World Conference

on Women and Sport held in Sydney in 2010, which attracted 500 participants from 60

countries. The theme of the conference was “Play Think Change”, which reflected a clear

shift in its approach. Previous World Conferences were mainly targeted at policy and

decision-makers in sport, but this time both practitioners (Play) and researchers (Think) were

brought together to discuss progress in the global women’s sport movement and ways to

address the challenges ahead (Change). According to IWG Co-chair Johanna Adriaanse as

documented in the conference program:

Reflecting the theme Play | Think | Change the Conference program has been

designed to attract both practitioners and researchers from around the globe providing

a unique blend of presentations about good practices and cutting-edge research to

stimulate debate and explore positive change for women and sport (Adriaanse et al.,

2010).

It was agreed that the legacy of this conference was the Sydney Scoreboard, the purpose of

which was to increase:

[w]ithin the context of the achievement of the UN Millennium Development

Goals…the number of women on the boards/management committees of all sport

organisations at international, regional, national and local level (International


The Sydney Scoreboard, a global index for women in sport leadership, operates as an

online tool through which women in leadership roles within sport organizations can be


tracked both nationally and internationally. This web-based database of 260 pages displays

information on the gender distribution on boards of sport organizations globally. Its aim is to

provide information for policy and practice and in this way to contribute to achieving gender

equality in sport management and governance.

In relation to the four-dimensional model, the notion of gender and gender equality in

the Sydney Scoreboard is mainly constructed on the power and production dimensions, since

it focuses on increasing the number of women in sport leadership positions. Specifically, this

legacy addresses production relations due to its emphasis on more roles for women in

leadership. It also involves power relations because, when women assume more leadership

roles, they are able to increase their influence and control in sport organizations. Its reference

to the UN Millennium Development Goals, a framework of values and principles, shows that

this legacy also involves the symbolic dimension of gender relations. Reference to the

emotional dimension of gender relations is, however, absent. The legacy makes no mention

of men and women working together to achieve a more balanced gender distribution on sport

boards and in sport management.

In summary, starting with the Brighton Declaration in 1994, there has been a

consistent and sustained call for action and other initiatives to advance gender equality in

sport, including sport leadership. This process has taken place at an international level and is

based on a human rights perspective. Table 1 provides a summary of the five World

Conferences, their legacies and associated gender dimensions.


Table 1 Gender Dimensions in Legacies of the World Conferences on Women and Sport Year Location Legacy Production

Relations Power Relations

Emotional Relations

Symbolic Relations

1994 Brighton, UK

Brighton Declaration

_

1998 Windhoek, Namibia

Windhoek Call for Action

limited

2002 Montreal, Canada

Montreal Toolkit

_

2006 Kumamoto, Japan

Kumamoto Commitment to Collaboration

limited

2010 Sydney, Australia

Sydney Scoreboard

_

Discussion

In relation to our first research question, the results allow us to identify the ways in

which gender was constructed in each legacy. By applying Connell’s (2009) four-

dimensional gender model, we found that the concepts of gender and gender equality in all

five legacies were mainly constructed on the dimensions of production, power and symbolic

relations. With regard to sport leadership, the focus in all five legacies was on increasing the

number of women in leadership positions, which involves production and power relations.

Considering that all legacies were firmly based on human rights principles and instruments,

were connected to a broader feminist and political agenda, and aimed to change the sporting

culture, it is evident that symbolic relations also play a major role in the construction of

gender. By contrast, reference to emotional relations in terms of collaboration and support

between and among men and women has been limited. Although some legacies have

emphasized solidarity and collaboration (e.g. the Windhoek Call for Action and the

Kumamoto Commitment to Collaboration), none of the legacies has explicitly alluded to

these relations along gender lines - between men and women - in the construction of gender.


With reference to the second research question, we found that there has been little

change in the construction of gender and gender equality in the five legacies. Apart from a

relatively strong focus on symbolic relations in the Brighton Declaration and a relatively

strong focus on production and power relations in the Sydney Scoreboard, these three

dimensions consistently feature in all five legacies. Equally significantly, the dimension of

emotional relations between men and women has consistently been ignored.

The limited reference to emotional relations in the construction of gender and gender

equality warrants further discussion. A recent study by Adriaanse and Schofield (2013)

shows that emotional relations had an impact on gender equality. It investigated gender

equality on sport boards of Australian National Sport Organizations using the four-

dimensional gender model. The researchers found that all four dimensions―structures of

practice―influenced the way gender operates on sport boards. Increasing the number of

women on sport boards (production and power relations) was an important first step towards

gender equality. However, another key finding was that relations of support and collaboration

that existed between men and women on the board impacted on gender equal governance.

Hostility by male board members towards women’s presence and participation, especially if

women hold leadership positions, undermined gender equal governance. Conversely, active

endorsement of and support for women by men on boards, particularly if these men hold

leadership positions, was highly effective in advancing gender equality. The establishment of

relations of solidarity between women and men on boards was vital in progressing gender

equality.

The significance of the role of men in advancing or obstructing gender equality in

sport leadership has been discussed in a number of studies. For example, several researchers

(Radtke, 2006; Sibson, 2010; Shaw, 2006) found that some male board members actively

prevented women from gaining or maintaining a seat at the boardroom table. This occurred


when women were given less opportunity than men to contribute and develop, were excluded

from male networks, or through intimidation and/or sexual harassment. Other studies have

shown that men can control boards by framing the process of recruitment and selection in

such a way that the male-dominated culture on the sport board was maintained (Hovden,

2000; Claringbould and Knoppers, 2007; Hall et al., 1989). This happened when male board

members selected women who “fit” to recreate themselves. Hovden’s (2000) examination of

leadership selection in Norwegian sport organizations found that the selection discourses

strongly reflected male-centered images of corporate leadership skills. The term

“heavyweight” was used as a metaphor of preferred leadership skills. According to Hovden

(2000), these skills were associated with heroic, powerful, masculine characteristics but were

perceived as gender neutral. The common strategy of searching networks of friends and

colleagues for potential board members recreated the existing gender structure.

Claringbould and Knoppers (2008) introduced a different perspective with their

suggestion that men can play a significant role in the “undoing” of gender meanings in

behavior or tasks. They examined how board members of national sport organizations in the

Netherlands engaged in “doing and undoing gender in sport governance” (Claringbould and

Knoppers, 2008: 81). Male directors did gender when they described male and female

qualities but undid gender when they allocated stereotypical behaviors in atypical ways―for

example, by allocating women the responsibility for high performance sport development or

appointing them as chairpersons. The authors emphasized that influential men can become

change agents by using their position to bring about change. Claringbould’s and Knoppers’

approach shifts the focus from the ways in which men can obstruct gender equality to those in

which men can advance gender equality in sport governance.

This leads into the third research question. In light of the study’s results, what are the

implications for accelerating gender equality in sport leadership? Considering the limited


focus in the legacies on the emotional dimension of gender relations, it is suggested that

establishing closer collaboration and support between men and women will advance gender

equality in sport leadership. According to Hargreaves (2000), the most significant outcome

of the Brighton Conference and Declaration was the provision of a mechanism of

empowerment for women to change the sporting culture. Many women who had been

working in isolation in their local communities now became part of a global network that

inspired and empowered them to work towards a more equitable sporting environment. The

establishment of a collaborative network was further emphasized in the Kumamoto

Commitment to Collaboration. Although men were not actively excluded, analysis of the

legacies showed that they were not explicitly included in this network either. Initially,

strengthening the emotional relations between women was an effective strategy for gender

equality but now a legacy that explicitly involves men may accelerate gender equality in sport

leadership. The importance of pro-actively including men and boys in gender equality

processes has been acknowledged in the context of gender politics on a world scale since the

1995 Beijing World Conference on Women (Connell, 2009; United Nations Division for the

Advancement of Women, 2008). This is based on the premise that gender equality cannot be

achieved by women alone. Men need to be engaged because they often control the resources

that are required and, more importantly, because men will also benefit from gender equality.

Conclusion

Findings of this study show that the construction of gender in all five legacies has

mainly centred on social practices associated with production, power and symbolic relations.

In relation to sport leadership, the legacies focussed on increasing the number of women in

leadership roles (production relations), affording women more influence through their

increased presence in decision-making positions (power relations), and creating a sporting

culture that enables and values women’s participation at all levels (symbolic relations).


By contrast, the dimension of emotional relations received limited attention.

Although the establishment of a global network has significantly strengthened emotional

relations among women themselves, there is no evidence that it has also enhanced solidaristic

relations between men and women. None of the five legacies explicitly referred to emotional

relations between men and women.

Although we have analyzed the four dimensions separately, in reality they interact

and influence each other. If the emotional dimension of gender relations is addressed by, for

instance, engaging men to support gender equality in sport leadership, men may allocate

more leadership roles to women which, in turn, may lead to an increase in women’s authority

and influence and, ultimately, to a cultural change in sport. In other words, changing the

emotional dimension can affect the other dimensions of production, power and symbolism.

Our findings have clear implications for practice to accelerate gender equality in sport

leadership. While the establishment of a collaborative global network for women and sport

has inspired and empowered women, a strategy of proactive inclusion of men is also required.

Without losing sight of the importance of supportive relationships among women, we

recommend that the network be extended to incorporate more men―in particular, influential

men who can use their positions to bring about change. Increasing women’s representation

on sport boards, as previously discussed, contributes to more sensitivity to other perspectives,

enhances the board’s independence and can lead to more effective governance. Gender

equality in sport leadership will benefit women, men and sport organizations.

In light of the findings of the present study, we recommend that future research

examines emotional relations and leadership in sport organizations, in particular the role of

men, since this area requires further development and understanding. Another

recommendation for further research is to investigate the way in which the IWG legacies


have been implemented in practice including to what extent they have influenced the

development of sport policy.


References

Acker J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organisations. Gender and society 4: 139-158.

Adriaanse JA. (2013) The role of men in advancing gender equality in sport governance. In: Pfister G and Sisjord MK (eds) Gender and sport: Changes and challenges. Munster: Waxmann, 50-70.

Adriaanse JA, Hamer-Smith C and Latour M. (2010) Program and abstract book 5th IWG World Conference on Women and Sport, Sydney: International Working Group on Women and Sport.

Adriaanse JA and Schofield T. (2013) Analysing gender dynamics in sport governance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review 16: 498-513.

Bourdieu P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Branson DM. (2007) No seat at the table: How corporate governance and law keep women out of the boardroom, New York: New York University Press.

Burton LJ. (2014) Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of research. Sport Management Review 15.

Burton LJ, Grappendorf H and Henderson A. (2011) Perceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilyzing the congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against women. Journal of Sport Management 25: 36-45.

Cameron J. (1996) Trailblazers: Women who manage New Zealand sport, Christchurch, New Zealand: Sports Inclined.

Claringbould I and Knoppers A. (2007) Finding a 'normal' woman: Selection processes for board membership. Sex Roles 56: 495-507.

Claringbould I and Knoppers A. (2008) Doing and undoing gender in sport governance. Sex Roles 58: 81-92.

Claringbould I and Knoppers A. (2012) Paradoxical practices of gender in sport-related organisations. Journal of Sport Management 26: 404-416.

Clegg S, Kornberger M and Pitsis T. (2011) Managing and organizations: an introduction to theory and practice, London: Sage publications.

Connell R. (1987) Gender and power, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Connell R. (2005) Advancing gender reform in large-scale organisations: A new approach for

practioners and researchers. Policy and society 24: 5-24. Connell R. (2009) Gender, Cambridge, UK: Polity. Doll-Tepper G, Pfister G and Radtke S. (2006) Progress towards leadership: Biographies and

career paths of male and female leaders in German Sport Organisations. Koln: Sportverlag Strauss.

Erhardt NL, Werbel JD and Shrader CB. (2003) Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate governance 11: 102-111.

Fasting K. (2000) Women's role in national and international sport governing bodies. In: Drinkwater BL (ed) Women in sport: Volume XIII of the Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine. An IOC Medical Committee publication. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 441-451.

Foucault M. (1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8: 777-795. Habermas J. (1976) Legitimation crisis, London: Heinemann. Hall MA, Cullen D and Slack T. (1989) Organisational elites recreating themselves: The

gender structure of National Sports Organisations. Quest 41: 28-45. Hannan C. (2006) Challenging the gender order. (accessed 1 November 2013).


Hargreaves J. (2000) Heroines of sport : The politics of difference and identity, London ; New York: Routledge.

Henry I, Radzi W, Rich E, et al. (2004) Women, leadership and the Olympic Movement, Loughborough: Institute of Sport & Leisure Policy, Loughborough University and the International Olympic Committee.

Henry I and Robinson L. (2010) Gender Equity and Leadership in Olympic Bodies, Loughborough: Centre for Olympic Studies and Research, Loughborough University and International Olympic Committee.

Hovden J. (2000) "Heavyweight" men and younger women? The gendering of selection processes in Norwegian sports organistions. NORA 8: 17-32.

Hovden J. (2006) The gender order as a policy issue in sport: A study of Norwegian Sport Organisations. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 14: 41-53.

Hovden J. (2010) Female top leaders – prisoners of gender? The gendering of leadership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2: 189-203.

Huse M and Solberg AG. (2006) Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in Management Review 21: 113-130.

Inglis S. (1997) Roles of the board in amateur sport organisations. Journal of Sport Management 11: 160-176.

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (1994) Brighton Declaration on Women and Sport. (accessed 1 November 2013).

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (1998) Windhoek Call for Action. (accessed 1 November 2013).

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2002) The Montreal Tool Kit. International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2006a) Kumamoto Commitment to

Collaboration. (accessed 1 November 2013). International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2006b) Program 4th IWG World

Conference on Women and Sport, Kumamoto: International Working Group on Women and Sport.

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2006c) Workshop: Changing the culture of leadership in sport. (accessed 1 November 2013).

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2012) Sydney Scoreboard. Available at: http://www.sydneyscoreboard.com/.

Kanter RM. (1977) Men and women of the corporation, New York: Basic Books. Kvande E. (2007) Doing gender in flexible organisations, Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Lukes S. (1974) Power: A radical view, London: Macmillan. McKay J. (1992) Why so few? Women executives in Australian Sport, Canberra: National

Sports Research Centre. McKay J. (1997) Managing gender: Affirmative action and organisational power in

Australian, Canadian and New Zealand sport, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nielsen S and Huse M. (2010) The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate governance: An international review 18: 136-148.

Pfister G and Radtke S. (2009) Sport, women and leadership: Results of a project on executives in German sports organisations. European Journal of Sport Science 9: 229-243.

Radtke S. (2006) Interview study: Biographies of women in honorary executive positions in German sport. In: Doll-Tepper G, Pfister G and Radtke S (eds) Progress towards

http://www.sydneyscoreboard.com/


leadership: Biographies and career paths of male and female leaders in German Sport Organisations. Koln: Sportverlag Strauss, 71-148.

Schofield T and Goodwin S. (2005) Gender politics and public policy making: Prospects for advancing gender equality. Policy and society 24: 25-44.

Schull V, Shaw S and Kihl IA. (2013) If a woman came in...she would have been eaten up alive: Analyzing gendered political processes in the search for an athletic director. Gender and society 27: 56-81.

Shaw S. (2006) Gender suppression in New Zealand regional sports trusts. Women in Management Review 21: 554-566.

Shaw S and Hoeber L. (2003) "A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch": Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organisations. Journal of Sport Management 17: 347-375.

Shaw S and Penney D. (2003) Gender equity policies in national governing bodies: An oxymoron or a vehicle for change? European Sport Management Quarterly 3: 78-102.

Shaw S and Slack T. (2002) 'It's been like that for donkey's years': The construction of gender relations and the cultures of sports organisations. Culture, Sport, Society 5: 86-106.

Sibson R. (2010) "I was banging my head against a brick wall": Exclusionary power and the gendering of sport organisations. Journal of Sport Management 24: 379-399.

Singh V and Vinnicombe S. (2004) Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and theoretical explanations. Corporate governance: An international review 12: 479-488.

Skirstad B. (2002) Shortage of females in local, national and international sport structures. Belgium Olympic and Interfederal Committees Colloquium "La femme et les structures sportives". Brussels.

Skirstad B. (2009) Gender policy and organisational change: A contextual approach. Sport Management Review 12: 202-216.

Terjesen S, Sealy R and Singh V. (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate governance: An international review 17: 320-337.

United Nations. (1945) Charter of the United Nations. (accessed 18 July 2011). United Nations. (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (accessed 18 July 2011). United Nations. (1979) Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against

women (accessed 18 July 2011). United Nations. (1995) The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Fourth United

Nations World Conference on Women. (accessed 18 July 2011). United Nations. (2011) UN Millennium Development Goals. Available at:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. (2007) Women 2000 and beyond:

Women, gender equality and sport, New York: United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women.

United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. (2008) Women 2000 and beyond: The role of men and boys in achieving gender equality (accessed 15 February 2012).

van der Walt N and Ingley C. (2003) Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate governance: An international review 11: 218-234.

West C and Fenstermaker S. (1995) Doing difference. Gender and society 9: 8-37. West C and Zimmerman DH. (1987) Doing gender. Gender and society 1: 125-151. White A and Brackenridge C. (1985) Who rules sport? Gender divisions in the power

structure of British sports organisations from 1960. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 20: 95-106.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/


World Health Organisation. (1986) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. (accessed 18 July 2011).

Yin RK. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

gender equality in sport leadership: from the … · 2020-05-25 · the focus was specifically on...

Documents